One of former President Donald Trump’s most vocal critics, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), is joining his battle against what it described as a federal judge’s “vague” and “impermissibly broad” order restricting his speech.
“As much as we disagreed with Donald Trump’s policies, everyone is entitled to the same First Amendment protection against gag orders that are too broad and too vague,” Mr. Romero said.
Judge Tanya Chutkan, who’s presiding over President Trump’s case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, issued an order on Oct. 17 prohibiting the Republican frontrunner from making statements that “target” the special counsel’s team, court staff, and “any reasonably foreseeable witness or the substance of their testimony.”
The ACLU’s brief echoes the defense’s Oct. 20 filing requesting that Judge Chutkan stay her order, which she did.
Both the ACLU and President Trump’s attorneys, John Lauro and Todd Blanche, criticized the court’s use of “target” and its language surrounding potential witness testimony.
“The First Amendment rights of the accused require any court order restraining their speech to be both clearly defined and narrowly framed,” the ACLU’s Oct. 25 brief reads.
“The order’s prohibition on speech that ’targets’ certain named and unnamed individuals is neither. Reading the order, [the] defendant cannot possibly know what he is permitted to say, and what he is not.”
Judge Chutkan’s order has provoked mixed reactions and raised critical questions about the scope of judicial power in restricting political speech.
“If our freedom of speech is to mean anything, the court cannot allow the prosecution to silence the leading presidential candidate whose speech and message are politically threatening to the incumbent president,” Mr. Lauro and Mr. Blanche wrote in their Oct. 20 brief.
Judge Chutkan, meanwhile, has maintained that criminal defendants don’t enjoy unrestricted First Amendment rights when their speech may compromise the integrity of the judicial process.
Her Oct. 17 order reiterated her concerns about President Trump provoking intimidation or harassment of individuals involved in the case.
“Undisputed testimony cited by the government demonstrates that when [the] defendant has publicly attacked individuals, including on matters related to this case, those individuals are consequently threatened and harassed,” Judge Chutkan wrote.
“Since his indictment, and even after the government filed the instant motion, [the] defendant has continued to make similar statements attacking individuals involved in the judicial process, including potential witnesses, prosecutors, and court staff.”
The government’s deadline for responding to President Trump’s motion was Oct. 25 and he can, in turn, reply by Oct. 28. Justice Department attorney Molly Gaston has already accused the defense of trying to place President Trump above the law in its opposition to a gag order.
It remains to be seen how Judge Chutkan’s order will ultimately impact his ability to speak about his case, but others, including professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University Law School, have suggested that it poses substantial legal questions.
“While appellate courts have largely ruled in favor of lower courts’ gag orders, there have long been constitutional concerns over these limits on not just the free speech rights of defendants but also their zealous representation by defense counsel,” Mr. Turley wrote.
He linked to a Slate article in which two former federal prosecutors—Dennis Aftergut and Frederick Baron—praised Judge Chutkan’s “elegant” order.
